4.7 Article

Age-related mutations and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 906-913

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2015.337

关键词

-

资金

  1. V Foundation for Cancer Research
  2. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
  3. Gabrielle's Angel Foundation for Cancer Research
  4. Charles and Ann Johnson Foundation
  5. National Institutes of Health [5R00CA151457-04, 1R01CA183974-01, CA04963920, 1R01CA178397-01, P01CA049639, P30 CA042014]
  6. PPHC Human DNA Sequencing Grant
  7. Utah Genome Project
  8. Center for High Performance Computing at the University of Utah
  9. American Society of Hematology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a hematologic malignancy nearly confined to the elderly. Previous studies to determine incidence and prognostic significance of somatic mutations in CMML have relied on candidate gene sequencing, although an unbiased mutational search has not been conducted. As many of the genes commonly mutated in CMML were recently associated with age-related clonal hematopoiesis (ARCH) and aged hematopoiesis is characterized by a myelomonocytic differentiation bias, we hypothesized that CMML and aged hematopoiesis may be closely related. We initially established the somatic mutation landscape of CMML by whole exome sequencing followed by gene-targeted validation. Genes mutated in >= 10% of patients were SRSF2, TET2, ASXL1, RUNX1, SETBP1, KRAS, EZH2, CBL and NRAS, as well as the novel CMML genes FAT4, ARIH1, DNAH2 and CSMD1. Most CMML patients (71%) had mutations in >= 2 ARCH genes and 52% had >= 7 mutations overall. Higher mutation burden was associated with shorter survival. Age-adjusted population incidence and reported ARCH mutation rates are consistent with a model in which clinical CMML ensues when a sufficient number of stochastically acquired age-related mutations has accumulated, suggesting that CMML represents the leukemic conversion of the myelomonocytic-lineage-biased aged hematopoietic system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据